1998•Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford)Requires access

The design and analysis of stochastic cost-effectiveness studies for the evaluation of health care interventions

Andrew H. Briggs, Magnus Tambour

Open publisher page 3 citations

Abstract

Many clinical trials are in progress which involve the collection of patient-level data on both the health outcome and resource use consequences of the health care interventions under evaluation. The overall aim of many such evaluations will be to undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis, which will often result in a cost-effectiveness ratio summarising the value for money of the intervention in question. In this paper, we explore the issues surrounding the design and analysis of such studies. At the design stage of an analysis, we propose an improved sample size formula for cost-effectiveness analysis that allows for covariance between cost and effect differences. This approach is based on the 'net benefits' approach to the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. At the analysis stage of an evaluation, we explore the differences and similarities of the 'net benefit' approach to analysing cost-effectiveness information and the traditional approach based on cost-effectiveness ratios. Despite the apparent differences, we show that the two approaches are exactly equivalent when it comes to estimating the probability that the intervention is cost-effective under alternative values of the ceiling cost-effectiveness ratio appropriate for decision-making purposes.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Many clinical trials are in progress which involve the collection of patient-level data on both the health outcome and resource use consequences of the health care interventions under evaluation. The overall aim of many such evaluations will be to undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis, which will often result in a cost-effectiveness ratio summarising the value for money of the intervention in question. In this paper, we explore the issues surrounding the design and analysis of such studies. At the design stage of an analysis, we propose an improved sample size formula for cost-effectiveness analysis that allows for covariance between cost and effect differences. This approach is based on the 'net benefits' approach to the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. At the analysis stage of an evaluation, we explore the differences and similarities of the 'net benefit' approach to analysing cost-effectiveness information and the traditional approach based on cost-effectiveness ratios. Despite the apparent differences, we show that the two approaches are exactly equivalent when it comes to estimating the probability that the intervention is cost-effective under alternative values of the ceiling cost-effectiveness ratio appropriate for decision-making purposes.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Many clinical trials are in progress which involve the collection of patient-level data on both the health outcome and resource use consequences of the health care interventions under evaluation. The overall aim of many such evaluations will be to undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis, which will often result in a cost-effectiveness ratio summarising the value for money of the intervention in question. In this paper, we explore the issues surrounding the design and analysis of such studies. At the design stage of an analysis, we propose an improved sample size formula for cost-effectiveness analysis that allows for covariance between cost and effect differences. This approach is based on the 'net benefits' approach to the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. At the analysis stage of an evaluation, we explore the differences and similarities of the 'net benefit' approach to analysing cost-effectiveness information and the traditional approach based on cost-effectiveness ratios. Despite the apparent differences, we show that the two approaches are exactly equivalent when it comes to estimating the probability that the intervention is cost-effective under alternative values of the ceiling cost-effectiveness ratio appropriate for decision-making purposes.

Key concepts: Cost-effectiveness analysis, Psychological intervention, Cost effectiveness, Cost–benefit analysis, Analysis of covariance, Health care, Risk analysis (engineering), Outcome (game theory)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The design and analysis of stochastic cost-effectiveness studies for the evaluation of health care interventions — Research Paper | ScholarLens